Obama has learned a lot from the Bushes.

[Vattel]

Obama, although he conceded that ISIS posed no immediate threat to the homeland, nevertheless used the fact that ISIL is a possible future threat to the homeland as part of his justification for going to war. I guess he learned from Bush junior that we can't wait for an imminent threat to emerge before taking action. He also used the killing of an American journalist as part of his justification for going to war. There he borrowed a page from Bush senior's playbook. The elder Bush used the kidnapping of Americans in Panama as a pretext for his invasion of Panama. Always good to have an American victim around to get people pissed-off enough to go to war.

[librechik]

1. terrorists do these things deliberately to provoke stupid actions from the US

that they can exploit. Unfortunately they have ways to exploit every response.

[underpants]

2. Sorry no comparison in my book

I see your point but Obama is vastly superior to both of them combined

[Vattel]

4. I agree

[YvonneCa]

5. Then why the negative post? n/t

[Vattel]

6. I hate the way presidents including Obama use bullshit rhetoric to justify war.

Obama is intelligent. He could simply lay out a serious justification for war. But he doesn't.

[YvonneCa]

7. Define just war. n/t

[Vattel]

8. You will have to wait for my book to come out to get an answer to that.

[YvonneCa]

9. ;)

[YvonneCa]

10. How about war only?

[Vattel]

11. well, in the 18th century Vattel defined war in this way:

"WAR is that state in which we prosecute our right by force"

[YvonneCa]

12. Did he imply that was military...

...or violent force? Or could it include force by imposing ones will on someone else?

[Vattel]

13. The force didn't have to be military,

but I am not sure whether it could be merely coercion or other sorts imposing one's will that only involve a threat of violence. By the way, he used the phrase "public war" to apply to a war between nations. Back then the word "war" was used very broadly. Even two individuals could be at war.

[YvonneCa]

14. I actually think our country lacks...

...a definition and a process to deal with just war. The American people seem confused about what President Obama is doing because of preconceived definitions of war.

A definition and then a debate could really clarify his strategy, IMHO.

[Vattel]

17. I agree, a consensus on standards would help

[geek tragedy]

3. That, and he lied about weapons of mass destruction, destroyed an entire country,

and send thousands of Americans troops to their graves.

Oh, wait . . .

[Vattel]

16. Sigh, I wasn't equating the two.

[MohRokTah]

15. .

[ucrdem]

18. Many wish we were going to war, but we aren't.

That isn't what he said last night. But what he did say he said in a way that allows the war-mongers among us to hear what they wanted to hear. But really nothing has changed and the bomb-Iran crowd is already complaining about Obama's "minimalist" approach. Took 'em 24 hours to catch on, though.

[YvonneCa]

20. They are a bit slow...

... . Thank you. I agree completely.

[YvonneCa]

19. I don't know if you think Obama learned...

...these things and therefore is more like GWB? I agree with you that he has learned, but I think his learnings make him very UNlike Bush.

Obama didn't learn that pre-emptive war is good, he learned that we need to use all our power...not just military might...when justified (just war as opposed to Iraq which GWB destabilized). Our power includes diplomacy sanctions etc.
As to using a victim as pretense...Obama has tried to consistently focus on anti terrorist strategy even as these sad horrible events distract his focus. He makes every effort to not 'play into their hands.'

GWB went to war unjustly...wrong place, shock and awe. Only military power. Fabricated diplomacy. He was distracted from getting the terrorists by his friends clamoring for oil.
President Obama will not make those mistakes. Yes, he has learned.